Violation of LSAT test center regulations Forum

rpupkin · Post by **rpupkin** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:25 am

whacka wrote:Does anyone seriously buy that OP didn't know he couldn't do that? Do you think the 35 minutes is just a suggestion or what

The OP explained that he understood there was a "you can't go back to a previous section" rule, but he thought that meant only that he couldn't return to a previous section's test book. That's obviously a significant misunderstanding of the rule, but I don't find the OP's explanation as implausible as most of you do. So, yes, I allow for the possibility that the OP was sincerely confused.

AfrocentricAsian · Post by **AfrocentricAsian** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:46 am

mist4bison wrote:
whacka wrote:Does anyone seriously buy that OP didn't know he couldn't do that? Do you think the 35 minutes is just a suggestion or what
Yeah, this is what I was thinking. I'm sure OP knew what he was doing, but thought he'd get away with it. He didn't and now the best excuse he can come up with is "but I didn't know!"

The OP thought he'd get away with filling in 10-11 missing answer choices?

ugg · Post by **ugg** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:47 am

Post removed.

AfrocentricAsian · Post by **AfrocentricAsian** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:51 am

theugg wrote:Looks like OP disappeared. Hopefully he wasn't super keen on going into law anyways.

Guess people in need of counsel will just have to deal with people like you representing them.

lymenheimer · Post by **lymenheimer** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:54 am

AfrocentricAsian wrote:
mist4bison wrote:
whacka wrote:Does anyone seriously buy that OP didn't know he couldn't do that? Do you think the 35 minutes is just a suggestion or what
Yeah, this is what I was thinking. I'm sure OP knew what he was doing, but thought he'd get away with it. He didn't and now the best excuse he can come up with is "but I didn't know!"
The OP thought he'd get away with filling in 10-11 missing answer choices?

10-11 missing answer choices is the difference between a 170 and a 180...So yea...It could be a pretty big deal. Especially if the OP is conveniently leaving out details of his story. For instance, he could have answered all of those questions, and transcribed them somewhere instead of bubbling them in, then filled them in during the next section. Just lol at taking people for their word in an anonymous online forum.

chalky · Post by **chalky** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:59 am

Post removed...

A. Nony Mouse · Post by **A. Nony Mouse** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:07 pm

It could well have been an honest mistake - people make dumb mistakes all the time. Or it could be that the OP was trying out their explanation here to see how it would fly. We can't tell. Whichever, the OP doesn't have to convince any of us, they have to convince LSAC.

Nagster5 · Post by **Nagster5** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:44 pm

Post removed.

PoopNpants · Post by **PoopNpants** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:50 pm

OP YOUR HIT

HxAxDxExS · Post by **HxAxDxExS** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:54 pm

Why in the world would you go back and erase it? Nobody is looking down on you to see if you did the right thing or not. You should've just left it on there, I mean, he gave you the warning and let it slide. WHY THE **** WOULD YOU GO BACK AND DO IT? I understand where you're coming from, but it is a big deal, because one part of the test may help you answering questions on the other side of the test.

ugg · Post by **ugg** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:03 pm

Post removed.

pterodactyls · Post by **pterodactyls** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:08 pm

rpupkin wrote:
whacka wrote:Does anyone seriously buy that OP didn't know he couldn't do that? Do you think the 35 minutes is just a suggestion or what
The OP explained that he understood there was a "you can't go back to a previous section" rule, but he thought that meant only that he couldn't return to a previous section's test book. That's obviously a significant misunderstanding of the rule, but I don't find the OP's explanation as implausible as most of you do. So, yes, I allow for the possibility that the OP was sincerely confused.

I agree that I could see this argument as plausible. If the proctor only said "you may not work on any other section" and the OP interpreted that is not being able to flip to previous sections, and thought that filling in random bubbles on answer sheet wouldn't count as "working" on that section (maybe because of cultural differences, etc.). Maybe in the OP's country, you would only get 35 minutes to look at that section, but they wouldn't really care what you did with your answer sheet.

Not saying I totally buy it, just saying it could be plausible.

A. Nony Mouse · Post by **A. Nony Mouse** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:10 pm

HxAxDxExS wrote:Why in the world would you go back and erase it? Nobody is looking down on you to see if you did the right thing or not. You should've just left it on there, I mean, he gave you the warning and let it slide. WHY THE **** WOULD YOU GO BACK AND DO IT? I understand where you're coming from, but it is a big deal, because one part of the test may help you answering questions on the other side of the test.

I think it's clear that the OP initially thought it was a warning, not that it actually was a
warning. I think the OP was already sunk at that point.

nlee10 · Post by **nlee10** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:25 pm

OP pls respond.

PrayFor170 · Post by **PrayFor170** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:31 pm

How on earth can you practice law when you just don't know you should read test regulations carefully beforehand? As an ESL student, I can assure you, you are not the only international student who is taking the exam. There are thousands of others and none of them(at least I never heard of)have run into the same problem as you do. Unless other foreigners also run into problems then you stand a chance to argue for your penalty, otherwise just admit law is not the right field for you and you should worry about whether this penalty will bar you from opportunities in other fields.

By the way, I do believe your proctor reads instructions before each section, right? Or is the proctor reading a translated version which misses such crucial information?

HxAxDxExS · Post by **HxAxDxExS** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:46 pm

Honestly, I feel bad for the guy, you guys were brutal. I haven't taken the LSAT, but I have taken practice exams based on real LSAT's. After every section, isn't there a whole page that clearly states something like "STOP, do not work on any other section"

ugg · Post by **ugg** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:47 pm

Post removed.

SirArthurDayne · Post by **SirArthurDayne** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:48 pm

Post removed.

HxAxDxExS · Post by **HxAxDxExS** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:49 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
HxAxDxExS wrote:Why in the world would you go back and erase it? Nobody is looking down on you to see if you did the right thing or not. You should've just left it on there, I mean, he gave you the warning and let it slide. WHY THE **** WOULD YOU GO BACK AND DO IT? I understand where you're coming from, but it is a big deal, because one part of the test may help you answering questions on the other side of the test.
I think it's clear that the OP initially thought it was a warning, not that it actually was a
warning. I think the OP was already sunk at that point.

I don't understand, initially thought it was, not that it actually was? Regardless, why go back and try to erase them, he doesn't get the person that gave him a warning to take it back; and exactly the opposite happened.

McJimJam · Post by **McJimJam** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:50 pm

Post removed.

pterodactyls · Post by **pterodactyls** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:52 pm

McJimJam wrote:
SirArthurDayne wrote:Okay, let's try to be helpful. What do you do now if you're OP?
Pray, make whatever ritualistic sacrifices I can to appease LSAC. Otherwise there isn't really anything to do until LSAC calls you in and reviews the case.

Could prob still go to Touro.

lymenheimer · Post by **lymenheimer** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:52 pm

SirArthurDayne wrote:Okay, let's try to be helpful. What do you do now if you're OP?

Pretty sure a bunch of people have already given some useful advice. I think the current debate is far more entertaining/useful...Especially since the OP is MIA.

ugg · Post by **ugg** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:53 pm

Post removed.

benwyatt · Post by **benwyatt** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:54 pm

Post removed.

chalky · Post by **chalky** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:56 pm

Post removed...